Descriptive analysis and comparison of two French occupational exposure databases: COLCHIC and SCOLA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several countries have built databases of occupational hygiene measurements. In France, COLCHIC and SCOLA co-exist, started in 1987 and 2007, respectively. METHODS: A descriptive comparison of the content of the two databases was carried out during the period 1987-2012, including variables, workplaces and agents, as well as exposure levels. RESULTS: COLCHIC and SCOLA contain, respectively, 841,682 (670 chemicals) and 152,486 records (70). They cover similar industries and occupations, and contain the same ancillary information. Across 17 common agents with >500 samples, the ratio of the median concentration in COLCHIC to the median concentration in SCOLA was 3.45 [1.03-14.3] during 2007-2012. This pattern remained when stratified by industry, task, and occupation, but was attenuated when restricted to similar sampling duration. CONCLUSIONS: COLCHIC and SCOLA represent a considerable source of information, but result from different purposes (prevention, regulatory). Potential differences due to strategies should evaluated when interpreting data from these databases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".